Colorado’s seatbelt defense is codified at C.R.S. § 42-4-237.  Colorado’s seatbelt statute requires all front seat occupants of motor vehicles to be restrained while the vehicle is in operation. C.R.S. § 42-4-237(1) & (2). The statute also creates an affirmative defense to any claim for pain and suffering damages caused by a failure to wear a seatbelt. C.R.S. § 42-4-237(7).  The statute provides that a seatbelt is must be worn only when a vehicle is “being operated on a street or highway.” C.R.S. § 42-4-237(2).  The Colorado Court of Appeals held that the seatbelt defense does not to apply to a plaintiff who was sleeping in the front seat of a parked truck even though the motor was running. Jackson v. Moore, 883 P.2d 622 (Colo. App. 1994).  A plaintiff’s failure to wear a seat belt does not constitute comparative negligence, it only mitigates pain and suffering damages. See Fischer v. Moore, 517 P.2d 458 (Colo. 1973).

In sum, a plaintiff who seeks recovery from injuries suffered in an auto accident, and who has violated C.R.S. 42-4-237, is subject to the defense that the plaintiff did not mitigate his or her damages for pain and suffering.  The defense does not apply to other non-economic damages, so  damages for emotional stress, impairment of the quality of life and inconvenience are recoverable despite the seat belt defense.  Equally important, the defense does not bar recovery for economic losses, such as loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity, loss of capacity to perform household duties, or future medical expenses. Pringle v. Valdez, 171 P.3d 624 (Colo. 2007).  However, the seatbelt defense can vitiate the viability of prosecuting a claim for a plaintiff who has primarily pain and suffering damages.

If you have been injured in a auto accident and need to speak to a lawyer, contact Denver Personal Injury Attorney Gregory A. Hall http://adenverpersonalinjurylawyer.com/

The information on this blog or website is not legal advice. Contact Mr. Hall to set up an appointment to evaluate your case.

Colorado recently enacted a law that provides remedies against insurance companies for unreasonably delaying or denying a claim. The new law, House Bill 08-1407, provides meaningful remedies to those who have had claims unreasonably denied or delayed by insurance companies. The law applies to the following types of insurance: auto, home, health, disability. It may apply to other types of insurance, but the law does not apply to workers’ compensation, life insurance or title insurance.

Prior to the enactment of this law, injured people were at a huge disadvantage in bringing claims against insurance companies, largely because the cost of bringing the lawsuit outweighed the potential benefits of obtaining a recovery. House Bill 08-1407 gives people the power to take legal action when insurance companies fail to pay their claims in a reasonable and timely manner. Potential remedies under the law include past benefits owed, double damages, and attorneys’ fees. So if you have a claim worth $35,000.00, and you prove the insurance company unreasonably delayed or denied paying the claim, then under House Bill 08-1407 you could receive double the $35,000.00, plus your attorney’s fees.

Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act

Under the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act in Colorado, insurance companies are required to act in good faith by following these practices:

• The insurance company must acknowledge your claim.
• The insurance company must act promptly in response to your communications.
• The insurance company must investigate your claim promptly.
• The insurance company must not delay the process with extra forms.
• The insurance company must provide plausible reason for delays or non-payment.
• The insurance company must evaluate your claim fairly.
• The insurance company cannot deny your claim without giving a valid reason.

When you have been injured in an auto accident, trucking, motorcycle, or other accident, the policy you purchased should provide you the coverage you bargained for, but insurance companies regularly deny or delay payment of claims for no good reason.  If this has happened to you, contact Colorado Personal Injury Attorney Gregory A. Hall to discuss your case with him. Mr. Hall will stand up for your rights and help you get what you deserve.

If you believe an insurance company has unreasonably delayed or denied your claim please contact: http://www.adenverpersonalinjuryattorney.com/

Gregory A. Hall
A Colorado Personal Injury Attorney
3570 E. 12th Avenue, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80206
Phone: 303-320-0584
Email: gregory@federallaw.com

On-Call Time / Standby Time

Is an employer obligated to pay an employee for on call time?  Of course the answer is not that easy.  The regulations state: An employee who is required to remain on his or her employer’s premises or so close thereto that he or she cannot use the time effectively for his or her own purposes is working while on-call.  See 29 C.F.R. § 785.17.  Whether hours spent on-call is compensable is a question of fact to be decided on a case-by-case basis.  On-call time is not always compensable, otherwise stated, on-call time is not always considered hours worked.

Some employees are required to remain on the employer’s premises or at a location controlled by the employer. For example a hospital employee who must stay at the hospital in an on-call room. While on-call, the employee is able to sleep, eat, watch television, read a book, etc. but is not allowed to leave the hospital.  Other employees are able to leave their employer’s premises, but are required to stay within so many minutes or so many miles of the facility and be accessible by telephone or by pager. An example of this type of employee is an apartment maintenance worker who has to carry a cell phone or pager while on call and must remain within a specified number of miles of the apartment complex. 

If while on-call you are required to remain on the employer’s premises, or another work site, then all time spent on-call is generally considered hours worked.   

If while on-call you are not required to remain on the employer’s premises but merely required to leave word where you can be reached, then you are not working while on-call.  However, you must also be able use the on-call time effectively to engage in personal activities.   You can still engage in personal activities even if the employer requires you to be accessible by telephone or paging device.  The employer may also establish rules governing use of alcohol or participation in other activities while you’re on-call, since you can engage in personal activities, like household chores, going to the movies or a ball game, or engaging in other activities. 

Another consideration in determining whether on-call time can be effective used for personal use is the frequency of the work calls received during your on-call time. If your employer interrupts you to such an extent that you cannot conduct your own personal activities, then the on-call time could be considered compensable, but the interruptions must be considerable.  Considerable interruptions would be an inability to finish a meal, read a story to your child or read a newspaper during one on-call period.

Even if while on-call you can use your on-call time for your own purposes, the employer must still pay you for all time spent responding to calls.

Unpaid Overtime

Although this inquiry is highly fact-driven, the court’s application of these factors in Leonard v. Carmichael Properties & Management Co., Inc., 614 F. Supp. 1182 (S.D. Fla. 1985), is particularly instructive.

In Leonard, a “caretaker” at an apartment community filed an action for unpaid overtime compensation. In connection with this claim, the caretaker asserted that he should be compensated for all “on-call” hours. The evidence showed that the caretaker, who resided in the apartment community, performed general maintenance at the building from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays. He was also required to be “on call” from 5:30 p.m. to 8 a.m. on weekdays and all day on Saturdays and Sundays.

To respond to after-hours emergencies, the caretaker carried a beeper and stayed within close proximity to the building; however, he was free to leave the property as he wished and to engage in personal pursuits. Indeed, the evidence showed that he went grocery shopping, attended church and entertained friends while “on call.” Under these circumstances, the court concluded that the caretaker was not entitled to compensation for his “idle time” spent waiting for calls.

Paid Overtime

In contrast, in Harris v. Mercy Health Corp., 2000 WL 1130098, No. 97-7802, *4 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2000), the court held that a reasonable jury could find that the employee was entitled to compensation for on-call time where the evidence showed that, although he was permitted to leave his home during his “on-call” hours, he was “on call” seven days a week for 24 hours per day, received up to 50 pages per week, and spent from 10 minutes to 40 minutes responding to each page. See also Renfro v. City of Emporia, 948 F.2d 1529 (10th Cir. 1991).  It found that on-call time was compensable because the employee was paged three to five times per day, which significantly restricted his personal activities.

 If you think you might be entitled for on call time, consider the following factors:

•  How frequently are you required to be “on call?”
• How frequently are you actually called into work?
• If you are a non-resident employee, how frequently are you required to return to the job site to handle the problem as opposed to handling it over the phone?
• Can you engage in personal activities while “on call”? 
• How much time is typically spent responding to a call? 
• Are you required to respond to a call within a certain amount of time? If so, what is that time period?
• Are you allowed to “switch” your “on-call” days with co-workers?

If you think your employer has wrongfully denied you on-call pay, contact Denver Attorney Gregory A. Hall at 303-320-0584.  http://adenverlawyer.com/ 

The information on this blog or website is not legal advice. Contact Mr. Hall to set up an appointment to evaluate your case.

Gregory A. Hall
Law Office of Gregory A. Hall
3570 E. 12th Avenue, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80206
Phone: 303-320-0584
Email: gregory@federallaw.com

A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of racial discrimination based upon a hostile work environment by showing that (1) the plaintiff was a member of a protected class; (2) the plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was race-based; (4) the harassment unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff’s work performance by creating an environment that was intimidating, hostile, or offensive; and (5) the employer was liable for the harassing conduct. Clay v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 501 F.3d 695, 706 (6th Cir.2007) (citing Hafford v. Seidner, 183 F.3d 506, 512 (6th Cir.1999)).  To satisfy the fourth element, “unreasonable interference,” a plaintiff “must present evidence showing that under the ‘totality of the circumstances’ the harassment was ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.’ “ Id. at 707 (quoting Williams v. Gen. Motors Corp., 187 F.3d 553, 560, 562 (6th Cir.1999) (in turn quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted))). To satisfy the fifth element, “employer liability,” a plaintiff must demonstrate “that [the plaintiff's] employer ‘tolerated or condoned the [alleged conduct]’ or ‘that the employer knew or should have known of the alleged conduct and failed to take prompt remedial action.’ “ Jackson v. Quanex Corp., 191 F.3d 647, 659 (6th Cir.1999) (quoting Davis v. Monsanto Chem. Co., 858 F.2d 345, 349 (6th Cir.1988)).

Severity and pervasiveness are evaluated according to the totality of the circumstances, considering such factors as “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993); see also Harsco Corp. v. Renner, 475 F.3d 1179, 1187 (10th Cir.2007) (listing factors to be considered in determining whether environment is hostile or abusive).  “Facially neutral abusive conduct can support a finding of […] animus sufficient to sustain a hostile work environment claim when that conduct is viewed in the context of other, overtly [racially] discriminatory conduct.”  O’Shea v. Yellow Tech. Serv’s., 185 F.3d 1093, 1097 (10th Cir.1999).  “A plaintiff cannot meet this burden by demonstrating a few isolated incidents of racial enmity or sporadic racial slurs.”  Chavez v. New Mexico, 397 F.3d 826, 832 (10th Cir.2005). (quotations omitted).

The information on this blog or website is not legal advice. Contact Mr. Hall to set up an appointment to evaluate your case.  Denver EEO Attorney: http://www.denvereeolawyer.com

Gregory A. Hall
A Colorado Civil Rights Attorney
3570 E. 12th Avenue, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80206
Phone: 303-320-0584
Email: gregory@federallaw.com

Caps on Damages in Colorado

Damages refers to the amount required to make a plaintiff whole for the damage done by the defendant’s negligence.  Damages are often categorized as either economic, such as loss wages or medical expenses, and non-economic or (“non-pecuniary”).  Many states, including Colorado, have adopted laws limiting the amount personal injury plaintiffs may recover from a lawsuit.  These limits are called “caps on damages” or simply “caps” because the amount of money which may be collected by a plaintiff is capped.  Generally speaking caps apply only to non-economic damages, what are called “pain and suffering” damages.  Non-economic damages are difficult to measure because they are damages for such things as humiliation, physical and mental pain, loss of enjoyment of life. 

Be advised, different damage caps are applicable in medical malpractice cases and cases brought against Colorado state or local governmental agencies, municipalities, cities, or other subdivisions of government.

Caps on Personal Injury Damages Not Resulting in Death

Non-economic damages are capped by Colorado law, but the amount can be doubled if the court finds justification to increase the award based clear and convincing evidence.  C.R.S. 13-21-102.5.   A plaintiff seeking noneconomic damages against multiple defendants can seek the capped amount from each defendant, unless the plaintiff is seeking noneconomic damages under the Wrongful Death Act. (See discussion below.)

Generally, a person seriously injured in an accident may claim, without limitation by caps, all of their economic damages and compensation for any disfigurement or physical impairment. In cases where more than one wrong-doer is responsible, the noneconomic damages cap applies to each award, rather than to each action; in this way, jury’s apportionment of fault percentages is retained while at the same time any award in excess of the statutory cap is limited.  General Electric Co. v. Niemet, 866 P.2d 1361, 1368 (Colo. 1994). 

The caps are follows:

• For accidents before January 1, 1998: $250,000 which may be increased to $500,000 by the court upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence for the increase.
• For accidents between January 1, 1998 and January 1, 2008: $366,250 which may be increased to $732,500 000 by the court upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence for the increase.
• Accident after January 1, 2008: $468,010 which may be increased to $936,030 by the court upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence for the increase.

Caps on Damages for Wrongful Death Noneconomic Loss

Colorado wrongful death claims are governed by the Wrongful Death Act, that includes six statutes, C.R.S. §§ 13-21-201, -202, -203, -203.5, 203.7 and -204.  In 2008, the Colorado Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can seek damages on a per claim basis only, and not a per defendant basis.  Lanahan v. Chi Psi Fraternity, 175 P.3d 97 (Colo. 2008).

Colorado has placed a cap on the non-economic damages recoverable in a wrongful death case.  Non-economic damages include grief, sorrow and loss of companionship, pain and suffering, and emotional stress.  The cap for non-economic damages under the Colorado Wrongful Death Act.  Caps for non-economic damages on wrongful death claims are as follows:

• For claims that accrue before January 1, 1998: $250,000.
• For claims that accrue between January 1, 1998 and January 1, 2008: $341,250.
• Claims that accrue after January 1, 2008: $468,010 which may be increased to $436,070.

C.R.S. §13-21-102.5. C.R.S. § 13-21-203.7, which was amended in 2007, provides for an inflationary adjustment of these amounts effective January 1, 2008.)   

Economic damages not capped and are determined by the “net pecuniary loss” rule.  For instance, if the husband, who is a family breadwinner, dies, the plaintiff or plaintiffs may recover as economic damages the amount of the husband’s past and future earnings, less any amount the husband would have consumed for his own support.  

If you have a wrongful death case, contact a Colorado Wrongful Death Attorney:  http://acoloradowrongfuldeathattorney.com/

Colorado Exemplary Damages

Contrary to popular myth, punitive damages, also known as “exemplary” damages, are not routinely awarded, and not collected in dramatically huge amounts. In Colorado, to collect exemplary damages one must prove “fraud, malice, or willful and wanton conduct.” And then, “the award for exemplary damages cannot exceed the amount of the actual damages awarded to the injured party.”  C.R.S. § 13-21-102.  Typically, awards of exemplary damages are not covered by a driver’s auto insurance policy.

Dram Shop Cases

Dram Shop cases are generally claims against bars or restaurants (licensees) that knowingly provide alcohol a visibly intoxicated person who then injures someone as the result of being intoxicated.  Colorado’s Dram Shop Act, C.R.S. § 12-47-801, sets out different standards of conduct for licensees and social hosts.  For licensees, liability exists if they willingly and knowingly serve a person who is: (1) visibly intoxicated or (2) under twenty one years old.  For social hosts, the standard is different.  Social hosts, meaning those providing alcohol at a party or other social event, are allowed to serve visibly intoxicated guests.  Social hosts are only liable if they willingly and knowingly serve a person under twenty one years old.  The willing and knowing service standard is hard to meet. In 1992 the Colorado Court of Appeals held that a parent that knowingly allows their home to be used for underage drinking has no social host liability unless they directly purchase or exercise control over the alcohol.   Forrest v. Lorrigan, 833 P.2d 873 (Colo. App. 1992).  A civil suit must be filed be within one year of the incident and the maximum judgment allowed is capped by statute as follows:

• Prior to January 1, 1998: $150,000.00
• Between January 1, 1998 and January 1, 2008: $219,750
• After January 1, 2008: $280,810.00

Federal and state laws require most employers to pay overtime to an employee who works more than 40 hours per week.  The overtime premium is 50% of the employee’s usual hourly wage. This means an employee who works overtime must be paid “time and a half” for every overtime hour worked.  These laws contain many exceptions, so not all employees are entitled to overtime and not all employers are requied to pay overtime.  . Employees who are eligible for overtime are called “non-exempt” employees, and those who are not eligible for overtime are called “exempt” employees, because they are exempt from the wage law.

Colorado and federal laws impose a weekly overtime standard, which means that non-exempt employees are entitled to overtime for every hour more than 40 that they work in a week, regardless of how many hours they work in a day.  Under Colorado law, however, employees are entitled to overtime pay for any work in excess of: (1) forty hours per workweek; (2) twelve hours per workday, or (3) twelve consecutive hours without regard to the starting and ending time of the workday (excluding duty free meal periods), whichever calculation results in the greater payment of wages. 

Employers Who Must Pay Overtime

Although most employers must pay overtime, not all do. To figure out whether your employer has to pay overtime, first determine whether the employer is covered by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal wage and hour law that sets out the overtime rules. Generally, the employer is covered by the FLSA if it has $500,000 or more in annual sales. Even if the business is smaller, however, it must pay overtime if the employees work in “interstate commerce”. This term is broadly defined and includes businesses that make phone calls to or from another state, sending mail out of state, or handling goods that have come from, or will go to, another state.  Even if your employer is so small or local that it isn’t covered by the FLSA, the employer be covered by Colorado’s wage laws. 

Am I Entitled to Overtime ?

If your employer is covered by either the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) or Colorado’s overtime law, then all non-exempt workers are entitled to overtime.  See C.R.S. §8-4-101 and Colorado Minimum Wage Order Number 26 (Section 22).  The following workers are “exempt” from the federal overtime law, are therefore not entitled to overtime:

• executive, administrative, and professional employees who are paid on a salary basis
• independent contractors
• volunteer workers
• outside salespeople (employees who customarily and regularly work away from the employer’s business, selling or taking orders to sell goods and services)
• certain computer specialists (such as systems analysts, programmers, and software engineers) who earn at least $27.63 per hour
• employees of seasonal amusement or recreational businesses, such as ski resorts or county fairs
• employees of organized camps or religious or nonprofit educational conference centers that operate for fewer than seven months a year
• employees of certain small newspapers
• newspaper deliverers
• workers engaged in fishing operations
• seamen
• employees who work on small farms
• certain switchboard operators
• criminal investigators, and
• casual domestic baby sitters and people who provide companionship to those who are unable to care for themselves (this exception does not apply to those who provide nursing care or to personal and home care aides who perform a variety of domestic services).

Exempt  Administrative, Executive, and Professional Employees

Probably the most common, and confounding exceptions to the overtime laws include “white collar” workers: “administrative, executive, or professional” employees need not be paid overtime.   To be considered exempt, administrative, executive, or professional employees must be paid on a salary basis and must spend most of their time performing job duties that require the use of discretion and independent judgment.

     Salary Basis – Exempt Criteria

An employee who is paid on a salary basis must earn at least $455 per week, and must receive the same salary every week, regardless of how many hours the employee works or the quantity or quality of the work the employee does.  There are a few circumstances in which an employer may pay a salaried worker less than his or her full salary for a week, if the employee takes a couple of days of paid sick or vacation leave, or takes time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Generally, however, if an employer docks an employee’s pay (for taking a personal day or not meeting a sales target, for example), then the employee is not paid on a salary basis and may be entitled to overtime.

     Job Duties – Exempt Criteria

Not every employee who earns $455 or more per week is exempt from overtime. The employee must also be performing certain types of work.  Some examples include, work that requires an advanced degree, is managerial or supervisory in nature, or requires the employee to make independent judgments regarding relatively high-level business decisions.  Here are the basic requirements for the administrative, executive, and professional exemptions.

• An administrative employee must perform office or other non-manual work that is directly related to the management or business operations of the employer or its customers, and must exercise discretion and independent judgment regarding significant issues.
• An executive employee’s primary duty must be managing the employer’s enterprise or a recognized division or department of that enterprise; the employee must regularly supervise at least two full-time employees (or the equivalent), and must have the authority to hire and fire or have significant input into hiring and firing decisions.
• A professional employee’s primary duty must either be performing work that requires advanced knowledge in the field of science or learning, of a type that is usually attained through an advanced course of study; or performing work that requires invention, imagination, originality, or talent in a recognized creative or artistic field.

If you’re being denied overtime contact Denver Employment Lawyer Gregory A. Hall at 303-320-0584. http://denvereeolawyer.com/

Denver, Colorado, Uninsured Motorist Claim Lawyer

UM/UIM means under-insured or uninsured.  When a person found legally responsible for your injuries does not have sufficient insurance to pay for the damages you suffered, then you may able to make a claim under your own auto policy for UM/UIM benefits.  People are hurt every day in auto accidents by someone who does not have insurance, or does not have enough insurance to pay for all the damages.  In this situation your own auto insurance policy may help pay for medical bills and lost wages, if your policy includes UM/UIM coverage.  You should make sure that you carry uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage on your auto insurance policy.  The cost form UM/UIM coverage is modest, so anyone who has an auto policy in Colorado would be well advised to purchase this coverage. 

In order to preserve a UM/UIM claim, the policyholder (the insured) has to comply the policy.  Every auto policy requires that the insured notify the insurance company of a potential claim.  You should review your policy to ensure that you know how to fulfill your responsibilities to make a claim for UM/UIM benefits.

Colorado Personal Injury Lawyer Gregory A. Hall can help you collect the UM/UIM benefits to which you’re entitled.  For information, visit http://acoloradopersonalinjurylawyer.com/  The information on this blog or website is not legal advice. Contact Mr. Hall to set up an appointment to evaluate your case.

Gregory A. Hall
A Colorado Personal Injury Attorney
3570 E. 12th Avenue, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80206
Phone: 303-320-0584
Email: gregory@federallaw.com

15-year-old Dallas Vosburg remains in critical condition from injuries sustained as a result of being struck on the head by a falling stop sign on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 in Littleton, Colorado.  According to authorities that responded to the accident, a 16-year-old driver of a pickup truck rear-ended a Plymouth sedan and then hit a stop sign.  The stop sign fell on Dakota Ridge High School student Vosburg as she was crossing at the crosswalk. It was unknown at the time of the report whether or not the truck also hit Vosburg. Vosburg was taken to Swedish Hospital to be treated for critical injuries. The 16-year-old driver of the pickup truck was cited for careless driving resulting in injury and for driving without a valid license.
 
 
Accidents involving pedestrians and bicyclists happen all the time, and the injuries to the accident victim are frequently catastrophic.  When such accidents occur, it may be difficult for a family to think about pursuing legal action against such a negligent party, but it may be in their best interests to do so, especially if medical bills are mounting, or if the injuries are severe.  Frequently, an injured person as to turn to their own automobile insurance policy to make a claim for “uninsured or underinsured motorists benefits.”  Anyone that has auto insurance should make sure that their policy provides for sufficient uninsured or underinsured benefits.  In this day and age, with the escalating costs of medical care, one might be well advised to carry at least $250,000.00 in coverage.   An accident victim or their family should contact a Colorado personal injury lawyer to see what legal options they may have.
 
Colorado personal injury lawyer Gregory A. Hall
 
DISLCLAIMER
 
The stories and situations discussed on this blog are for informational purposes only. The Law Office of Gregory A. Hall does not claim to represent any party referenced in this post. This blog exists to raise public awareness of Colorado Personal Injury Law. This blog allows for a means to share information and opinions.
 

A Federal Workers’ Comp Attorney

Attorney Gregory A. Hall has been representing federal employees since 1995. He represents federal employees from many states on various types of administrative and judicial claims. In addition to representing OWCP claimants, Mr. Hall takes EEO, MSPB and OPM disability cases. He has an active state and federal court practice as well.

For information go to: WWW.DENVEROWCPATTORNEY.COM

Gregory A. Hall
A Federal Workers’ Comp Attorney
3570 E. 12th Avenue, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80206
Phone: 303-320-0584
Email: gregory@federallaw.com

When a federal employee believes s/he has been the subject of discrimination or retaliation, s/he must go through an administrative process in an attempt to resolve the situation. To start the EEO complaint process the employee must contact the Agency’s EEO counselor within 45 days of the last discriminatory or retaliatory incident. Read the rest of this entry »